DOCSLIB.ORG

EPA Final Decision Regarding Waters Added to California's 2004-2006

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 June 28, 2007 Dorothy Rice Executive Director State Water Resources Control Board P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 Dear Ms. Rice: I am hereby transmitting to you the final list of waters and pollutants that EPA is adding to the State’s final 2004-2006 Section 303(d) List (see Enclosure 1). We have separately identified those waters which we proposed to add and those which were already on the State’s List (see Enclosure 2). A detailed responsiveness summary explaining public comments received and EPA’s responses is also enclosed (see Enclosure 3). On March 8, 2007, EPA took action on California’s 2004-06 §303(d) list, disapproving the State=s decision not to list 36 additional water bodies and additional pollutants for 34 waters already listed by the State. EPA provided public notice and solicited public comment on its identification of additional waters and pollutants for inclusion on California’s list. EPA reviewed the 19 written comments received from the State and other commenters. We concluded that one water body, North Fork Feather River, does not show impairment due to copper and thus does not warrant inclusion for copper on the list of additional waters and pollutants identified by EPA. We have also determined that several water body-pollutant combinations identified by EPA on March 8 were already included by California on the State’s 303(d) list of water quality limited segments; therefore EPA has revised the list of our additions accordingly. EPA has not issued an approval for the State’s decision to include Walnut Creek for toxicity on the list. This waterbody-pollutant combination was originally listed on the State’s 2002 list; however, the available monitoring data provides mixed toxicity results and so continued monitoring will yield better assessment conclusions in 2008. In the meantime, EPA requests the State retain Walnut Creek-toxicity on its 2004-06 list and include a footnote stating that EPA deferred action on this listing in 2004-06. EPA is also providing clarification regarding the contents of State’s 2004-06 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA Approved TMDLs. EPA has issued approvals of TMDLs adopted by California after November 30, 2006, which should be included. This portion of the State’s 303(d) List does not accurately reflect the specific water body-pollutant combinations of some TMDLs established by the State and approved by EPA prior to November 2006. We provide this information to clarify the contents of this List and we request the State to update California’s 2004-06 303(d) List – Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA Approved TMDLs (see Enclosure 4). We look forward to working with the State during the 2008 listing process. If you have questions on any aspect of this final listing decision, call me at (415) 972-3572 or Peter Kozelka at (415) 972-3448. Sincerely yours, /signed by/ AlexisStrauss Director, Water Division Enclosures Enclosure 1: Water body-pollutant combinations added by EPA to California’s 2004-06 §303(d) List. Description of Table Columns: “RB” column identifies the Regional Water Quality Control Board having jurisdiction over a listed water body. AWater body name@ column identifies the water bodies on the 303(d) list. APollutant@ column identifies the pollutant(s) causing impairment. “Water already listed by State for other pollutants?” column indicates whether the water body is already on the 303(d) list for other pollutants. “TMDL completion date” column indicates the estimated or projected completion date of the TMDL. Table 1: EPA’s additions to California’s 2004-06 §303(d) List. RB Water body name Pollutant Water already TMDL listed by State completion date for other pollutants? 1 Campbell Cove Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 Clam Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 Doran Regional Park Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 Luffenholtz Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 Moonstone County Park Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 Salmon Creek Park Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 Trinidad State Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 2 Aquatic Park Indicator Bacteria N 2019 2 Baker Beach (3 segments: Indicator Bacteria N 2019 Lobos Creek, Horseshoe Cove NW and NE) 2 Bolinas Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 2 Candlestick Point (3 segments: Indicator Bacteria N 2019 Jackrabbit Beach, Windsurfer, Sunndale Cove) 2 Chicken Ranch Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2008 2 China Camp Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 2 Crissy Field (2 segments: Indicator Bacteria N 2019 East and West) 2 Golden Hinde Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2008 2 Heart’s Desire Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2008 2 Lawson’s Landing Indicator Bacteria N 2008 2 McNears Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 2 Millerton Point Indicator Bacteria N 2008 2 Muir Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 3 Capitola Beach (3 segments: Indicator Bacteria N 2019 east of Capitola pier, east of jetty, west of jetty) 3 Goleta Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 3 Haskell’s Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 3 Leadbetter Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 3 Pismo Beach Pier Indicator Bacteria N 2019 1 RB Water body name Pollutant Water already TMDL listed by State completion date for other pollutants? 3 Rio Del Mar Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2019 3 Stillwater Cove (at Beach and Indicator Bacteria N 2019 Tennis Club) 4 LA Harbor-Consolidated Slip Benzo(a)-anthracene, Y 2008 Benzo(a)-pyrene Chrysene, Pyrene, Phenanthrene, 2-Methyl-naphthalene 4 LA/LB Harbor—Inner Harbor Copper, Zinc Y 2008 4 LA Harbor—Fish Harbor Benzo(a)-pyrene Y 2008 4 LA/LB Harbor—Outer Harbor Sediment toxicity Y 2008 4 Coyote Creek Lead, Zinc Y 2007 4 San Jose Creek Reach 1 Selenium, Toxicity Y 2007 4 San Gabriel River estuary Copper Y 2007 4 Alamitos Bay (4 segments: Indicator Bacteria N 2019 Shore float; 1st & Bayshore; 2nd St Bridge & Bay shore; 56th Place – bayside) 4 Colorado Lagoon (3 segments: Indicator Bacteria Y 2019 North, Center, South) 4 Long Beach City Beaches Indicator Bacteria N 2019 (13 segments: 3rd Place; 5th; 10th; 16th; 36th; 54th; 55th; 62nd; 72nd; Coronado Ave; Granada Ave; Molina Ave; Prospect Ave.) 4 Ormond Beach (3 segments: Indicator Bacteria N 2008 J St.; Oxnard Drain; Arnold Rd.) 4 San Buenaventura Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2008 (4 segments/drains: Kalorama; San Jon Rd.; Dover Ln.; Weymouth) 7 New River (Imperial) Copper Y 2019 7 Palo Verde Outfall Drain Pathogens Y 2019 and Palo Verde Lagoon 8 Huntington State Beach Indicator Bacteria Y 2019 (at Brookhurst St.) 9 Loveland Reservoir pH Y 2019 9 Mission Bay Indicator Bacteria Y 2019 9 San Diego Bay Shoreline- Indicator Bacteria N 2019 Bayside Park (at J St.) 2 Enclosure 2: Waters already on California’s 2004-06 §303(d) List. EPA has learned from SWRCB staff that some water body-pollutant combinations identified in our March 8, 2007 letter were already included on the State’s 2004-06 303(d) List. We concur with the State’s analysis that these waters are impaired for the specific pollutants and we clarify these water body-pollutant combinations in Table 2 below as being already on the State’s 303(d) List (either sub-list: Water Quality Limited Segments Still Needing TMDLs or Water Quality Limited Segments Being Addressed by USEPA Approved TMDLs). Table 2: Clarification of Waters/Pollutants which EPA had proposed to add (in March 8, 2007 letter) which were already included on California’s 2004-06 §303(d) List. RB Water body name Pollutant Water already TMDL completion listed by State date for other pollutants? 2 Linda Mar Beach /Pacifica St. Indicator Bacteria N 2019 Beach 4 Consolidated Slip Dieldrin Y 2008 4 Coyote Creek Toxicity Y 2008 4 LA River Reaches 1,2,3,4,5 Trash Y 2007 LA River Estuary Arroyo Seco Reach 1, 2 Burbank Western Channel Echo Park Lake, Lincoln Park Lake, Peck Road Lake, Rio Hondo Reach 1, Tujunga Wash, Verdugo Wash 4 Latigo Canyon Beach/ Indicator Bacteria N 2002* Dan Blocker Memorial Beach 4 Solstice Canyon/Dan Blocker Indicator Bacteria N 2002* Memorial (Coral) Beach 4 Westward/Zuma Beach Indicator Bacteria N 2002* 8 Newport Bay (14 segments) Pathogens Y 2000* 9 La Jolla—Children’s Pool/ Indicator Bacteria Y 2019 Pacific Ocean Shoreline, Scripps HA 9 Monarch Beach/Pacific Ocean Indicator Bacteria Y 2007 Shoreline, Dana Point HAS *Being Addressed by USEPA approved TMDLs 3 Enclosure 3: Responsiveness Summary EPA Decision Concerning California’s 2004-06 CWA §303(d) List Introduction On November 30, 2006, EPA approved California's proposed 2004-06 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of impaired waters and associated pollutants. On March 8, 2007, EPA disapproved California's decisions not to list 36 water quality limited segments and associated pollutants, and additional pollutants for 33 water bodies already listed by the State. EPA identified these additional water bodies and pollutants for inclusion on the State's 2004-06 CWA Section 303(d) List. EPA published a public notice of availability of its decision in the Federal Register on March 15, 2007, and solicited public comment on its identification of these additional waters and associated pollutants for inclusion on California's 2004-06 Section 303(d) list. EPA also posted the notice of availability and decision documents on its Region 9 web site. Decision documents were also available upon request from Region 9. Written comments were received from the following parties concerning the issues identified in parentheses: 1. Best, Best & Krieger, LLP (Lake Elsinore) 2. California Coastkeeper Alliance, NRDC and Heal the Bay (multiple issues) 3. City of Ventura (Ventura County beaches) 4.
Recommended publications
  • Doggin' America's Beaches

    Doggin' America's Beaches

    Doggin’ America’s Beaches A Traveler’s Guide To Dog-Friendly Beaches - (and those that aren’t) Doug Gelbert illustrations by Andrew Chesworth Cruden Bay Books There is always something for an active dog to look forward to at the beach... DOGGIN’ AMERICA’S BEACHES Copyright 2007 by Cruden Bay Books All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission in writing from the Publisher. Cruden Bay Books PO Box 467 Montchanin, DE 19710 www.hikewithyourdog.com International Standard Book Number 978-0-9797074-4-5 “Dogs are our link to paradise...to sit with a dog on a hillside on a glorious afternoon is to be back in Eden, where doing nothing was not boring - it was peace.” - Milan Kundera Ahead On The Trail Your Dog On The Atlantic Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Gulf Of Mexico Beaches 6 Your Dog On The Pacific Ocean Beaches 7 Your Dog On The Great Lakes Beaches 0 Also... Tips For Taking Your Dog To The Beach 6 Doggin’ The Chesapeake Bay 4 Introduction It is hard to imagine any place a dog is happier than at a beach. Whether running around on the sand, jumping in the water or just lying in the sun, every dog deserves a day at the beach. But all too often dog owners stopping at a sandy stretch of beach are met with signs designed to make hearts - human and canine alike - droop: NO DOGS ON BEACH.
  • Appendix A: Project Partners

    Appendix A: Project Partners

    Humboldt County Coastal Trail Implementation Strategy Technical Appendix JANUARY 2011 Prepared for: State of California Coastal Conservancy Project team: Natural Resources Services Division of Redwood Community Action Agency Alta Planning + Design Planwest Partners Streamline Planning Consultants Humboldt County Coastal Trail Implementation Strategy TECHNICAL APPENDICES Thank you to the community members and agency staff who provided input during public meetings and advisory team workshops throughout the planning process. Your participation and contributions are key to this and future efforts to bring the CCT to fruition. Peter Jarausch Project Manager State of California Coastal Conservancy [email protected] This plan was made possible through Proposition 40 funding Photo credits: Kids on bicycles, N. Wynne; Trail horses, U. Driscoll; Eureka boardwalk, J. Kalt All other photos by project team Appendix A: Project Partners Primary Partners ................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Federal Agencies .............................................................................................................................................................. 2 Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ....................................................................................................................... 2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) ................................................................................................................
  • Appendix 3.A Detailed Description of Water Quality Priorities Appendix 3.A  Detailed Description of Water Quality Priorities

    Appendix 3.A Detailed Description of Water Quality Priorities Appendix 3.A  Detailed Description of Water Quality Priorities

    Appendix 3.A Detailed Description of Water Quality Priorities Appendix 3.A Detailed Description of Water Quality Priorities The identification of Water Quality Priorities is an important first step in the EWMP process. The Water Quality Priorities provide the basis for prioritizing implementation and monitoring activities within the EWMP and CIMP and selection and scheduling of BMPs during the RAA. The identification of Water Quality Priorities is required in Section VI.C.5.a of the Permit as part of the development of a EWMP. The Permit defines three categories of WBPCs to support the development of priorities, as shown in Table 1. The Permit establishes a four‐step process that leads to prioritization and sequencing of the water quality issues within each watershed, ultimately leading to an organized list of Water Quality Priorities, as follows: Step 1: Water quality characterization (VI.C.5.a.i, pg. 58) based on available monitoring data, TMDLs, 303(d) lists, stormwater annual reports, etc.; Step 2: Water body‐pollutant classification (VI.C.5.a.ii, pg. 59), to identify water body‐pollutant combinations that fall into three Permit defined categories; Step 3: Source assessment (VI.C.5.a.iii, pg. 59) for the water body‐pollutant combinations in the three categories; and Step 4: Prioritization of the water body‐pollutant combinations (VI.C.5.a.iv, pg. 60). Table 1. Water Body-Pollutant Classification Categories (Permit Section IV.C.5.a.ii) Water Body‐Pollutant Category Combinations (WBPCs) Included 1 WBPCs for which TMDL Water Quality Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) and/or Receiving Water Limitations Highest Priority (RWLs) are established in Part VI.E and Attachments L and O of the MS4 Permit.
  • Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond

    Birding Northern California by Jean Richmond

    BIRDING NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Site Guides to 72 of the Best Birding Spots by Jean Richmond Written for Mt. Diablo Audubon Society 1985 Dedicated to my husband, Rich Cover drawing by Harry Adamson Sketches by Marv Reif Graphics by dk graphics © 1985, 2008 Mt. Diablo Audubon Society All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced in whole or in part by any means without prior permission of MDAS. P.O. Box 53 Walnut Creek, California 94596 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . How To Use This Guide .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Birding Etiquette .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Terminology. Park Information .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 One Last Word. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 5 Map Symbols Used. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Acknowledgements .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 Map With Numerical Index To Guides .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 8 The Guides. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 Where The Birds Are. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 158 Recommended References .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 165 Index Of Birding Locations. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 166 5 6 Birding Northern California This book is a guide to many birding areas in northern California, primarily within 100 miles of the San Francisco Bay Area and easily birded on a one-day outing. Also included are several favorite spots which local birders
  • 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report

    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report

    16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report Jingfen Sheng John P. Wilson Acknowledgements: Financial support for this work was provided by the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and the County of Los Angeles, as part of the “Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California” Project. The authors thank Jennifer Wolch for her comments and edits on this report. The authors would also like to thank Frank Simpson for his input on this report. Prepared for: San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy 900 South Fremont Avenue, Alhambra, California 91802-1460 Photography: Cover, left to right: Arroyo Simi within the city of Moorpark (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng); eastern Calleguas Creek Watershed tributaries, classifi ed by Strahler stream order (Jingfen Sheng); Morris Dam (Jaime Sayre/Jingfen Sheng). All in-text photos are credited to Jaime Sayre/ Jingfen Sheng, with the exceptions of Photo 4.6 (http://www.you-are- here.com/location/la_river.html) and Photo 4.7 (digital-library.csun.edu/ cdm4/browse.php?...). Preferred Citation: Sheng, J. and Wilson, J.P. 2008. The Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California. 16. Watershed Assets Assessment Report. University of Southern California GIS Research Laboratory and Center for Sustainable Cities, Los Angeles, California. This report was printed on recycled paper. The mission of the Green Visions Plan for 21st Century Southern California is to offer a guide to habitat conservation, watershed health and recreational open space for the Los Angeles metropolitan region. The Plan will also provide decision support tools to nurture a living green matrix for southern California.
  • Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California

    Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Report NPS/NRWRD/NRTR-2006/354 Water Resources Division Natural Resource Program Center Natural Resource Program Centerent of the Interior ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL WATER RESOURCES AND WATERSHED CONDITIONS AT CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK, CALIFORNIA Dr. Diana L. Engle The National Park Service Water Resources Division is responsible for providing water resources management policy and guidelines, planning, technical assistance, training, and operational support to units of the National Park System. Program areas include water rights, water resources planning, marine resource management, regulatory guidance and review, hydrology, water quality, watershed management, watershed studies, and aquatic ecology. Technical Reports The National Park Service disseminates the results of biological, physical, and social research through the Natural Resources Technical Report Series. Natural resources inventories and monitoring activities, scientific literature reviews, bibliographies, and proceedings of technical workshops and conferences are also disseminated through this series. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the National Park Service. Copies of this report are available from the following: National Park Service (970) 225-3500 Water Resources Division 1201 Oak Ridge Drive, Suite 250 Fort Collins, CO 80525 National Park Service (303) 969-2130 Technical Information Center Denver Service Center P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287 Cover photos: Top Left: Santa Cruz, Kristen Keteles Top Right: Brown Pelican, NPS photo Bottom Left: Red Abalone, NPS photo Bottom Left: Santa Rosa, Kristen Keteles Bottom Middle: Anacapa, Kristen Keteles Assessment of Coastal Water Resources and Watershed Conditions at Channel Islands National Park, California Dr.
  • National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)

    National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)

    National List of Beaches March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-04-004 i Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama ............................................................................................................... 3 Alaska................................................................................................................... 6 California .............................................................................................................. 9 Connecticut .......................................................................................................... 17 Delaware .............................................................................................................. 21 Florida .................................................................................................................. 22 Georgia................................................................................................................. 36 Hawaii................................................................................................................... 38 Illinois ................................................................................................................... 45 Indiana.................................................................................................................. 47 Louisiana
  • WILD PLACES Your

    WILD PLACES Your

    N e w t o Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park n B . Dogs allowed on leash no more than 6 ft. long in D r campgrounds, day use areas and roads. u r Enjoying Humboldt’s y D Gold Bluffs Beach a K v la is m Dogs allowed on leash no more than 6 ft. long on the beach, o a n t h R in beach campground and along roads. WILD PLACES d R . iv with Dogs are not allowed on trails in Redwood National and State Parks. er Your Dog Information Center ORICK Responsible dog owners help ensure that everyone can enjoy Freshwater Lagoon Beach Humboldt’s wildlife by choosing to keep their dog on a leash, B Stone Lagoon Beach a Redwood l knowing where and when it is appropriate for dogs to be off- d Humboldt Lagoons State Park National H il leash and by cleaning up after their dog. ls Dogs allowed only on park roads on a leash no more than 6 ft. long, with Dry Lagoon Beach and R o the exception of Dry Lagoon Beach, where dogs are allowed on a leash a State d no more than 6 ft. long. Please note that the majority of Big Lagoon Parks Beach is under state jurisdiction and no dogs are allowed. Big Lagoon Spit GUIDE KEY Big Lagoon County Park Dogs are allowed under voice control on The following color symbols are intended to be used as a Agate Beach North WEITCHPEC Agate Beach South county property. County property only extends general guide to understanding dog use regulations.
  • Equestrian Trails, Inc. Serving Equestrians Since 1944 Volume 13, Issue 12 December 2013

    Equestrian Trails, Inc. Serving Equestrians Since 1944 Volume 13, Issue 12 December 2013

    Equestrian Trails, Inc . Official Publication of Equestrian Trails, Inc. Serving equestrians since 1944 Volume 13, Issue 12 December 2013 Inside this issue: 2014 Trail 9 Trial Dates Corral 14 Fall 10 Drive for Larry Wilburn 100 Mules 12 Walk 7 Things to 16 Teach Your Trail Horse Members 22 Weigh In Kid’s Corner 23 Corral News 24 Upcoming Events FromFrom thethe toptop ofof VerdugoVerdugo toto thethe High Point Shows streetsstreets ofof Burbank,Burbank, thesethese mulesmules Gymkhanas traveledtraveled 240240 milesmiles fromfrom LoneLone Trail Trials & Rides PinePine toto LAECLAEC pg 12 See pages 5-6 NationalNational HolidayHoliday PartyParty Photo by Lisa Fisher Pg 8 Dedicated to Equine Legislation, Good Horsemanship, and the Acquisition and Preservation of Trails, Open Space and Public Lands ETI Contact Info Equestrian Trails Inc. PRESIDENT: Bob Foster www.etinational.com [email protected] (661) 309-7371 P.O. Box 1138 Acton, CA 93510 1st VICE PRESIDENT: Keelie Buck Phone: (818) 698-6200 [email protected] (805) 524-4486 Fax: (661) 269-2507 2nd VICE PRESIDENT: Sarah Williams Office Hours: 9:00 am—4:00 pm [email protected] (213) 400-2168 Monday—Thursday (closed Fri) IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT: Linda Debbie Foster — Office Manager, Web Master, Fullerton [email protected] Insurance, Jr. Ambassador Chair & Queen of All (818) 401-9089 Things [email protected] NATIONAL TRAIL COORDINATOR: TBD Ann Trussell — Membership — (661) 713-2358 cell DEPUTY TRAIL COORDINATOR: Terry Kaiser [email protected] [email protected]
  • Attachment a 303(D) List for Bodies of Water from RWQCB Basin Plans in Southern California

    Attachment a 303(D) List for Bodies of Water from RWQCB Basin Plans in Southern California

    Attachment A 303(d) List for Bodies of Water from RWQCB Basin Plans in Southern California Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc Attachment A-1 Lahontan RWQCB Basin Plan 303(d) List Regulatory_Issues_Trends.doc 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS REQUIRING TMDLS LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD USEPA APPROVAL DATE: JUNE 28, 2007 CALWATER POTENTIAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL REGION TYPE NAME WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR SOURCES SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION 6 R Big Meadow Creek 63410011 Pathogens 1.4 Miles 2019 Range Grazing-Riparian and/or Upland Natural Sources Recreational and Tourism Activities (non-boating) 6 R Blackwood Creek 63420021 Iron 5.9 Miles 2015 Erosion/Siltation Natural Sources Nonpoint Source Nitrogen 5.9 Miles 2008 Nitrogen loading from creek to be addressed during development of Lake Tahoe TMDL, but a more specific TMDL may be needed for Blackwood Creek. Silviculture Resource Extraction Hydromodification Streambank Modification/Destabilization Erosion/Siltation Atmospheric Deposition Natural Sources Nonpoint Source Phosphorus 5.9 Miles 2008 Phosphorus loading from creek to be addressed during development of Lake Tahoe TMDL, but a more specific TMDL for creek may be needed. Grazing-Related Sources Silviculture Resource Extraction Hydromodification Streambank Modification/Destabilization Erosion/Siltation Natural Sources Nonpoint Source Page 1 of 26 2006 CWA SECTION 303(d) LIST OF WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS REQUIRING TMDLS LAHONTAN REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD USEPA APPROVAL DATE: JUNE 28, 2007 CALWATER POTENTIAL ESTIMATED PROPOSED TMDL REGION TYPE NAME WATERSHED POLLUTANT/STRESSOR SOURCES SIZE AFFECTED COMPLETION Sedimentation/Siltation 5.9 Miles 2008 Creek affected by past gravel quarry operations and other watershed disturbance including grazing and timber harvest.
  • LOLETA Iv Eel River Wildlife Area Wildlife E 199 “North Coast 101” Is Distributed to Subscribers of the Times-Standard

    LOLETA Iv Eel River Wildlife Area Wildlife E 199 “North Coast 101” Is Distributed to Subscribers of the Times-Standard

    North Coast 2019-2020 | www.times-standard.com North Coast HUMBOLDT COUNTY GETTING HERE Long before Humboldt was a county, it was a bay inhab- Taking U.S. Highway 101 North will guide you right into ited by Yurok, Karuk, Wiyot, Chilula, Whilkut and Hupa Humboldt County. Once you’re north of San Francisco and tribes, among others. In May of 1853, the area we live and Mendocino County on U.S. Highway 101 north, you’ll enter work in today was declared a county almost 50 years after Humboldt County. sea otter hunters claimed it and named it after their hero. Continuing up U.S. Highway 101 north you’ll enter Del In 1850, hunters Douglas Ottinger and Hans Buhne Norte county and Crescent City. This is one of the last entered the bay and decided that a man they respected, main stops before you drive into Oregon. naturalist and explorer Baron Alexander von Humboldt, Humboldt is also the westernmost tip of smaller deserved a bay in his name. Thus, Humboldt Bay and highways like U.S. Highway 299 from Redding, and U.S. County were born. Highway 36 from Red Blu . PHOTO BY SHAUN WALKER Air Service to Redwood Coast California Redwood DEL NORTE COUNTY Climate Coast — Humboldt N e P Avg. Avg. Prairie Creek w a K r t Month Temp (°F) Rainfall County Airport (ACV) k o Redwoods l w n a a B Jan. .............. 56 ............3.8” 96 State Park m y . United Express D a Feb. .............. 55 .............3.6” r t Service to and from Fern Canyon u h r March .........
  • Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT

    Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT

    US Army Corps of Engineers® Los Angeles District Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study DRAFT – APPENDIX D GEOTECHNICAL, INCLUDING HTRW September 2013 Los Angeles District Geotechnical Branch DRAFT Geotechnical Feasibility Report Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Study Project Area, Los Angeles County, CA 2013 Geotechnical Feasibility Report Los Angeles River Ecosystem Study Project Area TABLE of CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context ......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Los Angeles River Description and General History ..................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Work .............................................................................................................................. 2 2.0 STUDY AREA ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Proposed Improvements and Alternatives ................................................................................... 3 2.2 Considered Improvements ........................................................................................................... 3 2.3 Tentatively Selected Plan .............................................................................................................